Streets of Gold (25 page)

TINA IN THE CLOSET
© November 17, 1936
by
Ignazio Di Palermo and Tina Carobbi

The purpose of this brief experiment was to test the application to human sexual response of the James-Lange Theory, specifically and primarily inquiring into the involuntary visceral and/or skeletal response of a ten-year-old male subject in close proximity with and to a nine-year-old female subject in a controlled space. Toward that end, a voluntarily induced, emotion-provoking situation was created spontaneously. A secondary objective was to have been an exploration of the responses of the nine-year-old female subject. Since the female, however, was unavailable for post-laboratory evaluation, data supplied by the male alone was deemed insufficient basis for objective conclusions.

Both subjects were fully clothed and selected at random. Both were in excellent physical and mental health, the male measuring 142.24 centimeters and weighing 33.11 kilograms, the female measuring 134.62 centimeters and weighing 31.20 kilograms. Neither had previous medical histories of male-aggressive/female-passive frotterism, and exhibited no overt tendencies toward neurotically motivated behavior in these areas, though this was not the concern of the experiment and did not enter formally into either laboratory considerations or post-lab evaluations. Similarly, an inquiry into the nature of prepubescent incestuous exploration seemed inappropriate since male and female subjects were not genetically related, although “family ties” could easily have been presumed (with resultant erroneous conclusions) in that female was the younger sister of the recently acquired bride of male’s uncle. For purposes of the experiment, a game of “hide-and-seek” was proposed, in which male subject’s older sibling was declared “It.” While he counted aloud from one to ten, male and female enclosed themselves in the control space, a recess measuring 182.88 by 213.36 centimeters, adjacent to the entrance door of the externally circumscribing space, and normally utilized for the storage of wearing apparel. Male subject’s mother and sister-in-law were in the kitchen eating cakes and honey.

Though insufficient data exists to support this premise, it is reasonable to posit that male’s sibling soon tired of the game, his blind brother being expert at it, and abandoned the externally circumscribing space in favor of the outdoors. Male and female remained hidden in the spontaneously created control space, waiting for the absentee sibling to discover them. By all accounts (the male’s), he was standing directly to the rear of and adjacent to the female. Female, it should be noted, was wearing a thin cotton dress and cotton panties. After fifteen minutes and thirty-two seconds of anterior-posterior proximity, male discovered, much to his surprise and amazement, an unaccustomed and totally unexpected engorgement of erectile tissue, producing a state of rigidity normally associated with arousal of the male organ of copulation in higher vertebrates. Simultaneously (and on the basis of unsubstantiated data supplied by male), female demonstrated involuntary skeletal activity of the dorsally located area of juxtaposition, experienced as “wiggling” and “rubbing” motor responses accompanied by seemingly unrelated verbalizations and frequent eruptions of muted laughter. Postulating on the James-Lange Theory, it would appear that sensory fibers in the aroused structures of male and female alike had been activated, causing visceral and skeletal contributions as the impulses passed back to the cortex. What had previously been nonemotional perceptions were augmented by “feelings,” which (as described by the male in post-laboratory discussions) were multi-leveled and altogether discombobulated.

As previously stated, female subject did not contribute data, but when male subject reported to his mother the visceral/skeletal responses and the “feelings” accompanying them, she said, “You didn’t
touch
her, did you?” When subject responded in the negative, she then said, “Your father will tell you all about these things when he gets home.”

Subject’s sibling explained the phenomenon thusly: “Iggie, that was nothing but a Russian hot iron.”

Subject’s father chose not to comment later that night. Or any other night, for that matter.